相关论文: Through the Lens of Split Vote: Exploring Disagree…

In legal NLP, Case Outcome Classification (COC) must not only be accurate but also trustworthy and explainable. Existing work in explainable COC has been limited to annotations by a single expert. However, it is well-known that lawyers may…

Subjective tasks in NLP have been mostly relegated to objective standards, where the gold label is decided by taking the majority vote. This obfuscates annotator disagreement and the inherent uncertainty of the label. We argue that…

Human label variation (HLV) is a valuable source of information that arises when multiple human annotators provide different labels for valid reasons. In Natural Language Inference (NLI) earlier approaches to capturing HLV involve either…

Offering a promising solution to the scalability challenges associated with human evaluation, the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models (LLMs). However, there are still many…

Calibration is a popular framework to evaluate whether a classifier knows when it does not know - i.e., its predictive probabilities are a good indication of how likely a prediction is to be correct. Correctness is commonly estimated…

When LLM-based multi-agent systems disagree, current practice treats this as noise to be resolved through consensus. We propose it can be signal. We focus on hate speech moderation, a domain where judgments depend on cultural context and…

In high-stakes decision-making tasks within legal NLP, such as Case Outcome Classification (COC), quantifying a model's predictive confidence is crucial. Confidence estimation enables humans to make more informed decisions, particularly…

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used as automated judges for multimodal systems, yet their scores provide no indication of reliability. We study this problem through conformal prediction, a distribution-free framework that…

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive achievements in solving a broad range of tasks. Augmented by instruction fine-tuning, LLMs have also been shown to generalize in zero-shot settings as well. However, whether LLMs closely…

Current alignment pipelines presume a single, universal notion of desirable behavior. However, human preferences often diverge across users, contexts, and cultures. As a result, disagreement collapses into the majority signal and minority…

In the realm of Natural Language Processing (NLP), common approaches for handling human disagreement consist of aggregating annotators' viewpoints to establish a single ground truth. However, prior studies show that disregarding individual…

Human Label Variation (HLV) refers to legitimate disagreement in annotation that reflects the diversity of human perspectives rather than mere error. Long treated in NLP as noise to be eliminated, HLV has only recently been reframed as a…

A common evaluation practice in the vector space models (VSMs) literature is to measure the models' ability to predict human judgments about lexical semantic relations between word pairs. Most existing evaluation sets, however, consist of…

Medical image segmentation annotation suffers from inter-rater variability (IRV) due to differences in annotators' expertise and the inherent blurriness of medical images. Standard approaches that simply average expert labels are flawed, as…

The increasing use of LLMs as substitutes for humans in ``aligning'' LLMs has raised questions about their ability to replicate human judgments and preferences, especially in ambivalent scenarios where humans disagree. This study examines…

Large vision-language models frequently struggle to accurately predict responses provided by multiple human annotators, particularly when those responses exhibit human uncertainty. In this study, we focus on the Visual Question Answering…

LLM-as-a-judge approaches have emerged as a scalable solution for evaluating model behaviors, yet they rely on evaluation criteria often created by a single individual, embedding that person's assumptions, priorities, and interpretive lens.…

Majority voting and averaging are common approaches employed to resolve annotator disagreements and derive single ground truth labels from multiple annotations. However, annotators may systematically disagree with one another, often…

Human Label Variation (HLV), i.e. systematic differences among annotators' judgments, remains underexplored in benchmarks despite rapid progress in large language model (LLM) development. We address this gap by introducing an evaluation…

This paper investigates the voting behaviors of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4 and LLaMA-2, their biases, and how they align with human voting patterns. Our methodology involved using a dataset from a human voting…